Quick to punch out?

[mules83]

I agree with what you all said. I guess I have to get out of the glider pilot mentality and the ability to control anything with a wing....

 

[HeyJoe]

I agree with what you all said. I guess I have to get out of the glider pilot mentality and the ability to control anything with a wing....

That's a good point...the glide ratio of a glider and aerodynamically unstable 4th generation fighter with fly-by-wire controls are a world apart.

There was a big change in "bailout" philosophy upon advent of swept wing designs that were followed shortly thereafter with ejection seats becoming a necessity and standard equipment. That occured around the beginning of the 50-60s decade that spawned so many fighter and attack designs (more new designs were introduced into Navy service in that 10 year period than in the 40+ years since). Ejection seats had been introduced in Swedish and German aircraft in the 40s as a means of escape at high speeds and supposedly, the Germans had scores of combat ejections during WWII. But the philosophy/doctrine/SOP was to force-land/ditch a straight-wing aircraft if the engine seized as ejection seats did not have the performance to handle zero altitude or high sink rates below 5K. Even after the seat performance was improved, many pilots were lost in swept wing aircraft when they tried to deadstick in when they should have taken "the option". Ejection seats became better accepted after they made some spectacular saves and their performance gradually improved and eventually provided zero-zero capability.

 

[Brett327]

Hope this makes sense...

I'm glad I'm not the only one who's thinking along those lines.

Brett

 

[MIDNJAC]

watching that video, at that altitude (or at least at the relative descent rate that the video depicts) I doubt that there would have been much the pilot could have done to recover that jet.....I'm no Naval aviator, and I have 0 time in ejection seat equipped a/c, but I for one would have been out of there too.....

 

[raptor10]

You guys dont think he could have shaken it loose?
View attachment 2786

 

[HeyJoe]

Shaken what loose?

 

[TurnandBurn55]

[In my best A4s voice]

The bottom line is that you have to establish a criteria for ejection with yourself or your crew. Yes, NATOPS has hard-and-fast rules for ejection (OCF, Emergency Cat Flyaway in the Rhino), but there's always some gray area.

Know your ejection seat limitations, and don't be the dude who says "just another few seconds...."

NFOs in the house: Don't let your pilot talk you into hanging onto the jet when you know it's a lost cause. I'm sure the salty dudes can tell you how many RIOs/BNs/ECMOs have pulled the fix-it handle when their stickmonkey was about to fly it into the water...

 

[Flash]

As I recall, this was one of early Gripen test flights and there was a flight control law disconnect/flaw so that airplane was not responding to pilot inputs...that low and after that hyacka...he got out just in time

According to a brief article in Aviation Week and Space Technology (February
27, 1989), the accident that destroyed the prototype
JAS-39 Gripen multirole combat aircraft was caused by a flight control software problem,
according to program officials at Saab.

The article doesn't go into any further detail, other than to say that Saab
officials are working on a revision of the Gripen's flight test program to
complete flight testing with the remaining four prototypes and still meet their
delivery date, which seems extremely optimistic as it is doubtful they have
already determined all the rework that will be required to fix the problems
that caused the crash, including (it appears) the need for a lot more software
QA.

The crash in the film linked was at an airshow over Stockhom in August 1993, it was the second crash of the Gripen. The first was the one that HeyJoe cited above, that one was landing when the pilot lost control of the aircraft and the plane rolled several times, the pilot did not eject but survived (I think he only injury was a broken arm). Apparently it was the same pilot for both of the crashes. It is cited that both crashes were filmed and subsequently very widely played in Sweden (the airshow crash narrowly missed a lot of people). I saw the earlier one too, pretty amazing the pilot got out with his life, it reminded me of the 'Six Million Dollar Man Crash' of the M2-F2 by Bruce Peterson http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/gallery/photo/M2-F2/HTML/E-16731.html , just not as violent. Here are a couple links:

February 1989 crash (about 3/4 of the way down the page, some other good films on the page): http://www.crazyaviation.com/deutschmovies.htm

Answers.com (go to crashes): http://www.answers.com/topic/saab-gripen

Eyewitness account on Google group (don't know the veracity, Ctrl F for Gripen): http://groups.google.com/group/comp.risks/msg/dd9f87773a6ea81f?

Preliminary crash report summary (again, don't know the veracity): http://www.canit.se/~griffon/aviation/text/gripcras.htm

 

[Piperdriver]

There was an IP in our squadron that received a medal for recovering a T-45 at 1000 ft, saving the airplane and the passed out student in the back. Apparently g-locked and jammed the flight controls.

I don't have all the details. I was hoping someone here did and could explain why they didn't punch out? NATOPS states if unable to recover passing 10 grand, eject.

 

[Gatordev]

Don't know the details, so just guessing here, but there's a difference between being OCF and having an aircraft that's not responding as it should. The IP may not have been in OCF, but still had to wrestle the controls from the passed out autopilot.

 

[Fly Navy]

There was an IP in our squadron that received a medal for recovering a T-45 at 1000 ft, saving the airplane and the passed out student in the back. Apparently g-locked and jammed the flight controls.

I don't have all the details. I was hoping someone here did and could explain why they didn't punch out? NATOPS states if unable to recover passing 10 grand, eject.

My understanding, and mind you it is heresay, is that the IP determined that the stud was slumped over the controls and if they ejected, the stud would have most certainly been killed. How the stud was slumped over, I don't know... kinda hard to do.

 

[Fly Navy]

Don't know the details, so just guessing here, but there's a difference between being OCF and having an aircraft that's not responding as it should. The IP may not have been in OCF, but still had to wrestle the controls from the passed out autopilot.

That's kind of the definition of OCF... though I know what you're saying. Lots of gray areas.

 

[Gatordev]

That's kind of the definition of OCF... though I know what you're saying. Lots of gray areas.

Yeah, I was trying to figure out how to write it so that it wasn't actually OCF. I guess another example is if your aircraft has bad low speed characteristics because of a midair, or your canopy was blown off accidentally. Both cases make it very hard to fly, but if you decide to stay w/ it and land as the hero (which has been proven to be possible), then a lot less people will say anything. Screw it up and, well, you know.

 

[wiseguy04]

There was an IP in our squadron that received a medal for recovering a T-45 at 1000 ft, saving the airplane and the passed out student in the back. Apparently g-locked and jammed the flight controls.

I don't have all the details. I was hoping someone here did and could explain why they didn't punch out? NATOPS states if unable to recover passing 10 grand, eject.

Yeah, I was there too, I remember that. I think the Commodore made a good point, that NATOPs is no substitute for good judgment. The IP knew it was probably time to get out, but he knew that he would probably break the unconcious student's neck if he pulled the handle. Truly a hero, in my opinion, to risk his own life to save the student's.

 

[Schnugg]

Screw it up and, well, you know.

The Old Hero-Goat Rollercoaster!!!

Round and round she goes...where she stops...nobody knows....